Boid
All-Pro
- Location
- Bangalore, India
- Name
- Rajiv
The video is actually about making still images.
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
'Will the DSLR die? Will small cameras rule the world?' at The Visual Science Lab
- Thread starter Amin
- Start date
The video is actually about making still images.
Luckypenguin
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Brisbane, Australia
- Name
- Nic
I don't see why this is such a ground breaking feature in relation to still photography. We've had the ability to shoot continuously at 3, 4, 5, 6+ fps for quite a while now, yet during that time I mostly have had the continuous shutter set to off.
Boid
All-Pro
- Location
- Bangalore, India
- Name
- Rajiv
There are a number of fashion photographers who shoot only in burst mode. Also birders and people on a safari, sports photographers, journalists, etc.
Using a red epic is more annoying than helpful, even though one is using it to capture stills you are actually directing video, not capturing the moment. That comes in the edit, which will now take 5 times as long and leave thousands of images behind to be second-guessed. For some fairly kinetic subjects it will be fine but for most it will trying and awful.
Fine art as well as personal stills, still have some life but commercially things are changing, print ads are dying, printed brochures are dying, even moving poster are starting to go to the live one-sheet, packaging is still the strongest use of stills and even there taking a “frame Grab” will be fine.
I agree that watching most video is dreadful but it is the vehicle of the Internet, newspapers are dying but Internet news, bloggers, and web sites are growing all the time.
Fine art as well as personal stills, still have some life but commercially things are changing, print ads are dying, printed brochures are dying, even moving poster are starting to go to the live one-sheet, packaging is still the strongest use of stills and even there taking a “frame Grab” will be fine.
I agree that watching most video is dreadful but it is the vehicle of the Internet, newspapers are dying but Internet news, bloggers, and web sites are growing all the time.
Boid
All-Pro
- Location
- Bangalore, India
- Name
- Rajiv
Apparently even Canon might be making a video to stills camera, shooting 4K video.
What
Here's another photographer taking about shooting stills with a video camera
"What I hadn’t anticipated going into this was the advantages this style of shooting would offer in terms of capturing natural expressions and key moments. Obviously, when you’re shooting 120 frames-per-second, it’s almost impossible to miss a moment. But there’s more to it. Shooting video is comparably silent and, without the constant clicking of the shutter reminding them that their every movement was being recorded, the athletes were able to forget I was there. This is huge when you’re striving for authentic, candid images, a hallmark of my work."
What
Here's another photographer taking about shooting stills with a video camera
"What I hadn’t anticipated going into this was the advantages this style of shooting would offer in terms of capturing natural expressions and key moments. Obviously, when you’re shooting 120 frames-per-second, it’s almost impossible to miss a moment. But there’s more to it. Shooting video is comparably silent and, without the constant clicking of the shutter reminding them that their every movement was being recorded, the athletes were able to forget I was there. This is huge when you’re striving for authentic, candid images, a hallmark of my work."
Djarum
All-Pro
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Name
- Jason
Cameras, regardless of technology, will be as small(or large) as the human hand will allow. Cell phones for example, have gotten larger in the last few years, not smaller. This trend is both ergonomically and technologically related. The same can be said for cameras.
As to Kirk's post, I do feel as it is condescending slightly. I don't care for the tone of his article at all. I like reading some, if not much of his stuff, but this piece just isn't all that good. Over on other forums we always see the FF and APSC users antagonizing mFT users about what their cameras cannot do. I get the same sort of thing here, just in reverse. When I read this I get the sense that he feels that technology is good enough to make FF and APSC cameras smaller. I think his agenda here is that this is how he wants the cameras to be, or should be. The article itself reads as if he is on some high horse.
I don't disagree that technology can't make these cameras smaller at least up to a point. It is still up to the consumers to buy or demand cameras to be smaller, and right now, mirrored ILCs still dominate the market. Consumers still are buying either because they offer artistically something mirrorless cameras don't or in some cases, offer tremendous value to the general hobbyist. Either way, the market will dictate where cameras will go, along with the latest technology.
As to Kirk's post, I do feel as it is condescending slightly. I don't care for the tone of his article at all. I like reading some, if not much of his stuff, but this piece just isn't all that good. Over on other forums we always see the FF and APSC users antagonizing mFT users about what their cameras cannot do. I get the same sort of thing here, just in reverse. When I read this I get the sense that he feels that technology is good enough to make FF and APSC cameras smaller. I think his agenda here is that this is how he wants the cameras to be, or should be. The article itself reads as if he is on some high horse.
I don't disagree that technology can't make these cameras smaller at least up to a point. It is still up to the consumers to buy or demand cameras to be smaller, and right now, mirrored ILCs still dominate the market. Consumers still are buying either because they offer artistically something mirrorless cameras don't or in some cases, offer tremendous value to the general hobbyist. Either way, the market will dictate where cameras will go, along with the latest technology.
Djarum
All-Pro
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Name
- Jason
Off topic slightly...
I hate videos for internet commercials or even for news related articles. Why? It takes too long. I can read an article in 10 or 20 seconds and some photographs with the article make the point. A news related video takes that long just to load. Then I have to turn the sound on. By the time I get the whole story, it can take minutes. Internet video ads are the same way. I suppose people with more time than I don't mind sitting through that. I don't.
wt21
Hall of Famer
Am I missing something? If you shoot 24fps for your video, I don't care the quality of the individual frame in terms of MP, RAW, etc. it's still a 1/24 second shutter speed (or slightly faster -- but if it's too fast, then the video will look terrible). What if you want 1/1000 to freeze action?
I suppose in the Jetsons-type future, we'll have all-in one cameras that do 8,000 fps, then post-produce quickly, algorithmically combining frames into an effective shutter speeds (i.e. combing 1,000 frames to simulate a 1/8 second shot) and adding/subtracting to simulate exposure for either video or photos (just push a button!). But that's some ways off.
But on a more personal level, I don't like processing video. The effort involved. combing through 24, 40 or 60 fps to find that "best" frame? I get tired combing through 300 shots from a days shooting. That would be covered in 10 seconds if you were shooting 30fps!
Also, as I think it was Nic or Luke who said -- video is a different medium. Forces you to watch the editors vision. Still open to interpretation, but photography can be even more personal to the viewer, and as the viewer, you decide how long/short of a time you spend looking at the image, or what part of the image.
I suppose in the Jetsons-type future, we'll have all-in one cameras that do 8,000 fps, then post-produce quickly, algorithmically combining frames into an effective shutter speeds (i.e. combing 1,000 frames to simulate a 1/8 second shot) and adding/subtracting to simulate exposure for either video or photos (just push a button!). But that's some ways off.
But on a more personal level, I don't like processing video. The effort involved. combing through 24, 40 or 60 fps to find that "best" frame? I get tired combing through 300 shots from a days shooting. That would be covered in 10 seconds if you were shooting 30fps!
Also, as I think it was Nic or Luke who said -- video is a different medium. Forces you to watch the editors vision. Still open to interpretation, but photography can be even more personal to the viewer, and as the viewer, you decide how long/short of a time you spend looking at the image, or what part of the image.
Djarum
All-Pro
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Name
- Jason
Can't "editing" be said about any form of art? Yes, we only get to see the edited version of a film. But don't we get to see the best or chosen photographs from a photographer? Don't we see the post processed form from the photographer? Some of the best paintings had actually been paintings over previous paintings or the artist scrapped the painting and started over. In the sense of "editing", this is done just as much in video as it is photography.
The real question I think is if the end result is trying to grap a frame out of video, is it really video? What is the different between video and burst shooting? The only limiting factor is time exposure time. Scientists use high speed shooting(frames, video, whatever it is called) just to look at a few specific frames/shots. Is it video or photography?
wt21
Hall of Famer
I agree, and I wasn't aware that I said you couldn't edit photos. I certainly didn't mean to convey that idea. Sorry. You see the editors vision in both. I think they are different mediums. Video's vision unfolds over time. Photographs are frozen in time, and the viewer provides more interpretation (they have to, in the absence of the sense of movement driven by video movement, music, fades, etc.
For me, personally, I am not concerned what something is called -- whether it's called "video" or "photography." To me, it's just semantics. I'm more concerned with the viability of getting what you want. If you are trying to shoot video and stills simultaneously, you may be sacrificing something on one end or the other. I think they are currently different mediums. "The only limited factor is exposure time" -- that's a pretty large limiting (or gating) factor currently, IMO. Again, if you had that 8,000fps video that automagically combined shots into the shutter speed/exposure that you wanted, then we might be talking convergence, but that's hardly likely to happen anytime soon, and would create a LOT of review time to pull out the best stills.
It is far more than just semantics, it is a whole other way of seeing, working and shooting.
The way it looks to me, the dSLR still, surprisingly, has some life. I base this on my own purchase of the K5. Not only that, the new K-30 seems to have breathed further life into the dSLR.
Right now, AF needs to be innovated (outside of Nikon and u4/3), so that's a missing piece. To me, if Pentax can figure out AF, possibly incorporating the hybrid system or other tech from Ricoh, we might have the perfect replacement for a dSLR. Design aside, naturally. EVF is another story.
Right now, AF needs to be innovated (outside of Nikon and u4/3), so that's a missing piece. To me, if Pentax can figure out AF, possibly incorporating the hybrid system or other tech from Ricoh, we might have the perfect replacement for a dSLR. Design aside, naturally. EVF is another story.
imnotarobot
Rookie
Its not his page, its Google's blogspot site. Drives many browsers nuts, needs tons of bandwidth, don't bother if you use an iOS device.
Andrewteee
All-Pro
Yeah, I don't like that new design. Silly indeed.
